Post by TRK on Dec 10, 2007 16:17:07 GMT -5
This is a spinoff of "The Breakouts" thread. In June 1878, the San Antonio Express reprinted an article from the Corpus Christi Press relating the story of Manuel Loranca, as translated by D. M. Hastings of Corpus Christi. Loranca claimed to have been a second sergeant in the Mexican Army during the 1836 campaign; his unit wasn't specified.
I have no independent evidence that Loranca did or did not see combat at the Alamo. While some of his statements seem credible, his account--whether through his own faulty memory after forty-two years, or erroneous understanding of the battle, or translator error--is riddled with errors. Here is a recitation of some of them:
Loranca stated that the Alamo was “defended by eighteen pieces of artillery” Gen. Ampudia’s report of Mar. 6, 1836, inventoried 21 mounted pieces of artillery captured in the battle. (Admittedly, a manuscript account by Santa Anna written a couple of years before Loranca's article, which Loranca probably would not have had access to, stated that the Texans had 18 artillery pieces.)
Loranca gives the date of the Mexicans’ arrival at Béxar as “the 26th of February, 1836.” He was three day off.
He makes reference to “Generals Cos and Filisola when they capitulated to the Texans at the Mission de la Espada,” evidently in reference to Cos’ surrender at Béxar in December 1835. The capitulation didn’t occur at Espada, and Filisola was nowhere near the scene.
”The bombardment [of the Alamo] was effectually commenced on the 27th of the same month [February].” According to Travis, the bombardment began Feb. 23 and continued without letup. Almonte’s diary reports the Mexicans fired “4 grenades” at the Alamo on Feb. 23; on the following day, they “kept up a brisk fire” from “a new battery…on the bank of the river”. Depending on how you interpret “effectually commenced,” you could say the bombardment for all intents began either on February 23 or 24.
Loranca: “On the 4th of March the President Santa Anna called a council of war to consider the mode of assault of the Alamo, and they decided to make the assault on the 6th, at daybreak” According to Almonte, the staff meeting of March 4 ended with Santa Anna “not making any definite resolation [resolution]” as to the date and circumstances of the assault.
Loranca’s version of the deployments for the final assault: “On the north, Col. Don Juan Baptisto Morales with the Battalion "Firmas," of San Luis Potosi; on the west, Col. Don Mariano Salas, with the Battalion of Aldama; on the south, Col. Jose Vincente Minon, with the Battalion of Infantry; on the east, a squadron of Lancers, flanked by a ditch, to cut off the retreat at the time of the assault. These Lancers were commanded by Gen. Don Joaquin Ramires y Sesma.” Loranca (or the reporter/translator) made a complete mess of the order of battle: Morales attacked from the south; Minon was actually vice Morales; the San Luis Potosi Battalion was actually in Duque’s column, which isn’t mentioned; the Aldama Battalion was actually in Cos’ column, which similarly isn’t mentioned…and on and on.
“The assault took place at 3:30 a.m. on the 6th” Loranca had the start time about ninety minutes to two hours too early.
Loranca said that the signal for the attack “was to be given from a fort about a cannon-shot to the east of the Alamo, where the President Santa Anna was with the music of the regiment of Dolores and his staff to direct the movements.” According to his March 5 orders, the bugler signaling the attack was to be at the battery north of the Alamo. If Santa Anna adhered to his own orders, by implication the north battery is where Santa Anna was at the commencement of the attack.
Loranca: At the close of the battle, upon entering the compound, “the first thing we saw on entering a room at the right was the corpses of Bowie and Travis.” There’s no evidence that Travis’ body was in a room, let alone in the same location as Bowie.
Loranca specifies that the only survivors were “a negro and a woman having a little boy about a year old. She was said to be Travis' cook.” The references seem to be to Joe and Susannah and Angelina [not a boy] Dickinson. There were numerous other survivors.
Of the Texans who “sallied from the east side of the fort,” Loranca states that “Only one of these made resistance; a very active man, armed with a double barrel gun and a single-barrel pistol, with which he killed a corporal of the Lancers named Eugenio. These were all killed by the lance, except one, who ensconced himself under a bush and it was necessary to shoot him.” This is quite contrary to Sesma’s characterizations in his after-battle report, where he wrote of the “desperate resistance” of the first breakout group, and the “vigorous” stand of the second breakout group, which Sesma “feared” would repulse the force he sent to thwart them, as they were “resolved to sell their lives very dearly.” Sesma mentions one of his troopers killed during the actions of March 6, and it isn’t a “Eugenio,” but Jose Hernandez. There in front of the fosse were gathered the bodies of all those who died by the lance, and those killed in the fort, making a total to two-hundred and eighty-three persons . . . and here they were ordered to be burned, there being no room in the campo santo or burying ground, it being all taken up with the bodies of upwards of four hundred Mexicans, who were killed in the assault.”
While the figure of 283 Texans may be somewhat in line with recent reassessments of the total number of the garrison, 400 Mexican dead is most likely much higher than the actual number.
To recap, I have no evidence to prove or disprove that Loranca was a participant in the battle (although Todd Hansen, in his commentary on the Loranca account in The Alamo Reader, finds it curious that this supposedly eyewitness account has no specific references to what Loranca himself saw or did in the battle). Loranca's statements, at least as related through a translator and two different printings in different newspapers, and at a forty-two-year remove from the actual events, are riddled with errors. While some of those may be nit-picky errors, the devil is in the details...and this account has a devil of a lot of problems. I think one has to factor them into any evaluation of this account's historical merits.
I have no independent evidence that Loranca did or did not see combat at the Alamo. While some of his statements seem credible, his account--whether through his own faulty memory after forty-two years, or erroneous understanding of the battle, or translator error--is riddled with errors. Here is a recitation of some of them:
Loranca stated that the Alamo was “defended by eighteen pieces of artillery” Gen. Ampudia’s report of Mar. 6, 1836, inventoried 21 mounted pieces of artillery captured in the battle. (Admittedly, a manuscript account by Santa Anna written a couple of years before Loranca's article, which Loranca probably would not have had access to, stated that the Texans had 18 artillery pieces.)
Loranca gives the date of the Mexicans’ arrival at Béxar as “the 26th of February, 1836.” He was three day off.
He makes reference to “Generals Cos and Filisola when they capitulated to the Texans at the Mission de la Espada,” evidently in reference to Cos’ surrender at Béxar in December 1835. The capitulation didn’t occur at Espada, and Filisola was nowhere near the scene.
”The bombardment [of the Alamo] was effectually commenced on the 27th of the same month [February].” According to Travis, the bombardment began Feb. 23 and continued without letup. Almonte’s diary reports the Mexicans fired “4 grenades” at the Alamo on Feb. 23; on the following day, they “kept up a brisk fire” from “a new battery…on the bank of the river”. Depending on how you interpret “effectually commenced,” you could say the bombardment for all intents began either on February 23 or 24.
Loranca: “On the 4th of March the President Santa Anna called a council of war to consider the mode of assault of the Alamo, and they decided to make the assault on the 6th, at daybreak” According to Almonte, the staff meeting of March 4 ended with Santa Anna “not making any definite resolation [resolution]” as to the date and circumstances of the assault.
Loranca’s version of the deployments for the final assault: “On the north, Col. Don Juan Baptisto Morales with the Battalion "Firmas," of San Luis Potosi; on the west, Col. Don Mariano Salas, with the Battalion of Aldama; on the south, Col. Jose Vincente Minon, with the Battalion of Infantry; on the east, a squadron of Lancers, flanked by a ditch, to cut off the retreat at the time of the assault. These Lancers were commanded by Gen. Don Joaquin Ramires y Sesma.” Loranca (or the reporter/translator) made a complete mess of the order of battle: Morales attacked from the south; Minon was actually vice Morales; the San Luis Potosi Battalion was actually in Duque’s column, which isn’t mentioned; the Aldama Battalion was actually in Cos’ column, which similarly isn’t mentioned…and on and on.
“The assault took place at 3:30 a.m. on the 6th” Loranca had the start time about ninety minutes to two hours too early.
Loranca said that the signal for the attack “was to be given from a fort about a cannon-shot to the east of the Alamo, where the President Santa Anna was with the music of the regiment of Dolores and his staff to direct the movements.” According to his March 5 orders, the bugler signaling the attack was to be at the battery north of the Alamo. If Santa Anna adhered to his own orders, by implication the north battery is where Santa Anna was at the commencement of the attack.
Loranca: At the close of the battle, upon entering the compound, “the first thing we saw on entering a room at the right was the corpses of Bowie and Travis.” There’s no evidence that Travis’ body was in a room, let alone in the same location as Bowie.
Loranca specifies that the only survivors were “a negro and a woman having a little boy about a year old. She was said to be Travis' cook.” The references seem to be to Joe and Susannah and Angelina [not a boy] Dickinson. There were numerous other survivors.
Of the Texans who “sallied from the east side of the fort,” Loranca states that “Only one of these made resistance; a very active man, armed with a double barrel gun and a single-barrel pistol, with which he killed a corporal of the Lancers named Eugenio. These were all killed by the lance, except one, who ensconced himself under a bush and it was necessary to shoot him.” This is quite contrary to Sesma’s characterizations in his after-battle report, where he wrote of the “desperate resistance” of the first breakout group, and the “vigorous” stand of the second breakout group, which Sesma “feared” would repulse the force he sent to thwart them, as they were “resolved to sell their lives very dearly.” Sesma mentions one of his troopers killed during the actions of March 6, and it isn’t a “Eugenio,” but Jose Hernandez. There in front of the fosse were gathered the bodies of all those who died by the lance, and those killed in the fort, making a total to two-hundred and eighty-three persons . . . and here they were ordered to be burned, there being no room in the campo santo or burying ground, it being all taken up with the bodies of upwards of four hundred Mexicans, who were killed in the assault.”
While the figure of 283 Texans may be somewhat in line with recent reassessments of the total number of the garrison, 400 Mexican dead is most likely much higher than the actual number.
To recap, I have no evidence to prove or disprove that Loranca was a participant in the battle (although Todd Hansen, in his commentary on the Loranca account in The Alamo Reader, finds it curious that this supposedly eyewitness account has no specific references to what Loranca himself saw or did in the battle). Loranca's statements, at least as related through a translator and two different printings in different newspapers, and at a forty-two-year remove from the actual events, are riddled with errors. While some of those may be nit-picky errors, the devil is in the details...and this account has a devil of a lot of problems. I think one has to factor them into any evaluation of this account's historical merits.